Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 11 Aug 2013 08:48

That IAF reply is a joke and actually proves points made by AS. Blatant lies and now an effort to cover it up. Also AS did a great job on NDTV.

Great story and great job by AS! We need more of this to beat IA/IAF in to submission.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 11 Aug 2013 09:29

228 NG will be produced from the fusalag made by HAL. That being the case, why not use the saras.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 11 Aug 2013 10:24

Pratyush wrote:228 NG will be produced from the fusalag made by HAL. That being the case, why not use the saras.

Hmmm RUAG does not manufacture the fuselage even now. HAL exports it.

saps · Post by **saps** » 11 Aug 2013 11:44

aharam wrote:The 21 is not a forgiving aircraft - it was built in a different era for a different war with very different loss dynamics where a classification such as interceptor still existed. Components age, airframes age, engines age and most importantly expectations change. A fighter ought to be as easy to fly as car is to drive - the question is a car of which era? By today's standards a p-51 Mustang is a death trap - again different era, different priorities.

The Mig 21s failure rate in the IAF is to one you can't answer simply with statistics. A plane that has served successfully for half a century is a bit more complicated.

From my interactions with ppl in blue....

1. Its mostly the problems of trainees getting on the wrong side of approach curve, they mentioned region of reverse command. Exists only on delta like Mig-21, with no known recovery techniques from low level approach scenario. Meaning no recovery from inadvertent drop of speed, which could be for multitude of reasons.

2. Low frontal visibility especially in approach mode.

3. Extremely tricky handling characteristics in slow speed regime, meaning not care free.

4. Not so good engine response, especially during approach phase.

5. Lack of reliable / sophisticated on board recovery aids, meaning no VOR / ILS / Accurate landing aids thus adding onto the job of piloting, imagine all this with relative inexperience+lesser on the job hands on time and i guess slightest margin of error would be catastrophe.

Open to debate but guess most platform score above Mig-21 simply on some of these absolute basics, we are still not talking about weapons + radar or for that matter tactics.

Gurus, opinions.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Aug 2013 16:35

Indian AF Chief Slams Hindustan Aeronautics
Asks MoD to Skip Local Planes, Buy Swiss-made Trainers

NEW DELHI — In a scathing attack on India’s monopoly military aircraft manufacturer, the head of the Air Force has asked the Defence Ministry to drop plans to produce a homemade basic trainer and instead continue purchasing Swiss-made trainers.

In a detailed letter written to Defence Minister A.K. Antony last month, Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne wrote that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) should instead focus on its delayed aircraft projects, especially intermediate jet trainers (IJTs), and not build the HTT-40 homemade basic trainer.

In making the case for further purchases of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark 2 trainers, Browne wrote that not only are the PC-7s cheaper than the HTT-40s, there is also no guarantee that HAL would adhere to the delivery schedule, given its poor track record.

“It is pertinent to mention that HAL routinely seeks approval for a small project completion period (Typically T0+60 months) without achieving it,” Browne wrote. T0+60 means the product will be delivered 60 months after signing the contract, which HAL fails to do.

In the case of the IJT, HAL claimed it would achieve the initial operational clearance (IOC) within 60 months of signing the contract. But even after 14 years, the probable date of completion for IOC is still unknown, Browne wrote.

Browne went on to write that the HAL promised IOC of the light combat helicopter by December 2010, yet now says it won’t happen until September 2014 and is expected to cost more. As for the light utility helicopter, IOC was to be February 2014, but the project is behind schedule and the engine contract has yet to be signed.

Browne contends that the Swiss trainer is not only cheaper but its delivery is guaranteed. Plus, he wrote that he prefers to use only one model of basic trainer, and building two would complicate issues relating to spares. India has already ordered 75 PC-7 trainers.

The HTT-40, meanwhile would cost nearly 62 percent more than the Swiss trainer after 2017 due to slippages in delivery of the homemade trainer.

The contract for 75 Swiss trainers contained an option for 37 more. Browns said he wants to exercise that option and then buy another 68 for a total of 180.

The Air Force set a requirement for that number of trainers in 2009 after a series of accidents forced the MoD to ground the HPT-32 basic trainer. A global tender was issued, which Pilatus won for the 75 trainers, with the balance to be built by HAL.

No official from HAL would give the exact delivery date of the HTT-40, but said the prototype would fly in three years. A senior HAL official said Browne’s cost estimates for the HTT-40 were too high.

Browne alleged that the basic trainer proposed by HAL has several imported components. “Instead of assembling together and integrating the BTA from foreign procured items, HAL needs to concentrate all its design & development efforts, energy and capabilities on expediting IOC for the IJT, urgently required to replace the Kiran trainer aircraft which is starting to retire this year.”

“The severe criticism of the Indian Air Force on HAL reflects the underlying dissatisfaction with the users on delay in homemade projects and inferior quality of work done by the state-owned aerospace monopoly company,” said Bhim Singh, retired Air Force wing commander, adding that the government must establish an aircraft manufacturer in the private sector.

koti · Post by **koti** » 15 Aug 2013 21:29

PMO, former NSA, IAF chiefs...
What is disheartening is the alleged involvement of PMO in this.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 15 Aug 2013 22:59

Austin wrote:Indian AF Chief Slams Hindustan Aeronautics
Asks MoD to Skip Local Planes, Buy Swiss-made Trainers
NEW DELHI — In a scathing attack on India’s monopoly military aircraft manufacturer, the head of the Air Force has asked the Defence Ministry to drop plans to produce a homemade basic trainer and instead continue purchasing Swiss-made trainers.

In a detailed letter written to Defence Minister A.K. Antony last month, Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne wrote that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) should instead focus on its delayed aircraft projects, especially intermediate jet trainers (IJTs), and not build the HTT-40 homemade basic trainer.

In making the case for further purchases of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark 2 trainers, Browne wrote that not only are the PC-7s cheaper than the HTT-40s, there is also no guarantee that HAL would adhere to the delivery schedule, given its poor track record.

“It is pertinent to mention that HAL routinely seeks approval for a small project completion period (Typically T0+60 months) without achieving it,” Browne wrote. T0+60 means the product will be delivered 60 months after signing the contract, which HAL fails to do.

In the case of the IJT, HAL claimed it would achieve the initial operational clearance (IOC) within 60 months of signing the contract. But even after 14 years, the probable date of completion for IOC is still unknown, Browne wrote.

Browne went on to write that the HAL promised IOC of the light combat helicopter by December 2010, yet now says it won’t happen until September 2014 and is expected to cost more. As for the light utility helicopter, IOC was to be February 2014, but the project is behind schedule and the engine contract has yet to be signed.

Browne contends that the Swiss trainer is not only cheaper but its delivery is guaranteed. Plus, he wrote that he prefers to use only one model of basic trainer, and building two would complicate issues relating to spares. India has already ordered 75 PC-7 trainers.

The HTT-40, meanwhile would cost nearly 62 percent more than the Swiss trainer after 2017 due to slippages in delivery of the homemade trainer.

The contract for 75 Swiss trainers contained an option for 37 more. Browns said he wants to exercise that option and then buy another 68 for a total of 180.

The Air Force set a requirement for that number of trainers in 2009 after a series of accidents forced the MoD to ground the HPT-32 basic trainer. A global tender was issued, which Pilatus won for the 75 trainers, with the balance to be built by HAL.

No official from HAL would give the exact delivery date of the HTT-40, but said the prototype would fly in three years. A senior HAL official said Browne’s cost estimates for the HTT-40 were too high.

Browne alleged that the basic trainer proposed by HAL has several imported components. “Instead of assembling together and integrating the BTA from foreign procured items, HAL needs to concentrate all its design & development efforts, energy and capabilities on expediting IOC for the IJT, urgently required to replace the Kiran trainer aircraft which is starting to retire this year.”

“The severe criticism of the Indian Air Force on HAL reflects the underlying dissatisfaction with the users on delay in homemade projects and inferior quality of work done by the state-owned aerospace monopoly company,” said Bhim Singh, retired Air Force wing commander, adding that the government must establish an aircraft manufacturer in the private sector.

though i am not a supporter of importing defense items but these guys are creating situation where we are forced to buy from abroad.

Just look at Tejas, Arjun or sub projects they are getting delayed for more than 4-5 years by the time they will inducted they will normally become outdated.

What i suggest is to import in small quantity with keeping indigenous developments. Try to absorb or learn or develop better than imported technology by studying it and incorporate such to indigenous developments and increase the production speed so that they can catch up with standard requirements. If can't compete atleast put TD in front of them which in turn force IA, IN, IAF to look at local product rather than abroad.

if IAF, DRDO, HAL, MoD & other R&D are serious about Tejas then by now we should have had atleast 2 sq of Tejas flying in IAF color. This clearly shows mentality of IAF just look at USAF which is putting such a brave face to defend its most expensive projects.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 15 Aug 2013 23:49

The question is to use resources to develop indigenous capability that by the time it comes into fruition it will be outdated or do you spend resources on the latest product that gives you one over the enemy. You ask any member of the forces - they are likely to tell you they want the best product that gives them an advantage over the enemy.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 15 Aug 2013 23:52

I guess what matters most and above all else is the nations defence preparedness, that cannot be sacrificed for the sake of indeginization . Be it trainers or combat aircraft.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Aug 2013 01:03

they are likely to tell you they want the best product that gives them an advantage over the enemy

AND

is the nations defence preparedness

These and others have to happen at the same time, in a way that the difference between the them are narrowed until the indigenous products provide a sustainable advantage over the enemy.

As long as ALL parties see ALL these as part of the same coin they can make it happen. Each party now views itself as different and somehow superior to others. This will never work - now or in the future.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 16 Aug 2013 02:14

I think lack of any level playing field in sarkari agencies is moving the talent miles away from government defense institutions. I think we should be moving massively to develop private defense companies which is the only way we can guarantee project delivery on time ! I dont know why government is poke nose in anything related to defense ! Why cant these be outsourced to private companies like US ? they can be regulated under government of India at higher level and let them compete.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Aug 2013 02:28

ashish raval wrote:I think lack of any level playing field in sarkari agencies is moving the talent miles away from government defense institutions. I think we should be moving massively to develop private defense companies which is the only way we can guarantee project delivery on time ! I dont know why government is poke nose in anything related to defense ! Why cant these be outsourced to private companies like US ? they can be regulated under government of India at higher level and let them compete.

That is one way to look at it.

The other way is: "they can be regulated under government of India" could lead to the same situation.

WRT the US culturally they are very different - risk being the biggest one that I have noticed. Process, management, .......... a few others.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 16 Aug 2013 08:49

shyamd wrote:The question is to use resources to develop indigenous capability that by the time it comes into fruition it will be outdated or do you spend resources on the latest product that gives you one over the enemy. You ask any member of the forces - they are likely to tell you they want the best product that gives them an advantage over the enemy.

just take a look at MRCA & Tejas project

planned in 2001 to make up the depleting forces and even in 2013 we are still thinking on it when we have depleted force and even we sign it in 2013 we can expect delivery from 2015 onwards.
Tejas first fly in 2001 to replace Mig-21 and even in 2013 after several delays & cost escalations LCA yet to replace Mig-21s. We are still not sure when will we see Tejas in IAF colour it may be in 2014 or 2015.

Tejas would have been in reality by now if we had brought full package of Mirage 2000s in 2001 and added some of those ingredients to our indigenous LCA curry then we could have built a successful Tejas by 2013 flying in IAF colour rather depending/counting on it. It would have solved IAF problem for depleting force and a parallel project Tejas would have done lot of good to IAF future.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 16 Aug 2013 08:54

People may call it Turkey or Chicken but Locheed is forcing US Govt to fund its project and calling it as F-35s.

There are 61 F-35s already delivered, 81 completely built and others still being assembled at Lockheed's facility in Ft. Worth, Texas. The Pentagon estimated that retrofit costs for the first 90 aircraft will amount to $1.2 billion.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0 ... .htmlstory

We need HAL to concentrate on job like this otherwise please don't initiate any future projects.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Aug 2013 20:17

Here's a bone to chew upon! What has happened to our high-alt recce capability after the MIG-25s were retired? There has been scant news about what has replaced them. True,we have "remote sensing" sats in orbit,but as far as we know,no dedicated spy sat like the US's KH series.This beggars the Q in respect to the sudden grave threat from the PRC.Some years ago there was a hint thatw e were looking at a Russian high-alt spy plane.Could it have possibly been this? Worth a serious look again.The pic in the link is most interesting with the double boom tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_M-55

M-17 Stratosphera

The design of the Chaika was adapted as a reconnaissance aircraft and emerged as the Myasishchev M-17 Stratosphera with a revised airframe, including straight tapered wings with 2° 30' anhedral (0° at 1g), shorter fuselage pod and unreheated Kolesov RD-36-51 turbojet engine. Flown for the first time on 26 May 1982 The M-17 prototype (regn CCCP 17401) was soon allocated the NATO reporting name Mystic-A[2] and was used for investigating the Ozone layer over Antarctica in 1992.

The M-17 also set a total of 12 FAI World Records, 5 of which still stand today.[3] On 28 March 1990, M-17 CCCP 17401 piloted by Vladimir V. Arkhipenko[4] set an altitude record of 21,830 m (71,620 ft) in class C-1i (Landplanes: take off weight 16 000 to 20 000 kg).[5]
M-55 Geophysica

The M-17 balloon-interceptor based model was terminated in 1987 and replaced by the M-17RN, later known as the M-55 Geophysica, which was dubbed by NATO Mystic-B.[2] First flown on 16 Aug 1988, the M-55 airframe was revised further with a longer fuselage pod housing two Soloviev D-30-10V un-reheated turbojet engines, shorter span wings and comprehensive sensor payload.

The M-55 set a total of 15 FAI World Records, all of which still stand today:[6] On 21 September 1993, an M-55 piloted by Victor Vasenkov from the 8th State R&D Institute of the Air Force named after V.P. Chkalov at Akhtubinsk reached a class record altitude of 21,360 m (70,080 ft) in class C-1j (Landplanes: take off weight 20,000 to 25,000 kilograms (44,000 to 55,000 lb)).[7]

A dual control version, the M-55UTS, was developed by adding a second cockpit behind the original, displacing some avionics and/or sensor payload.[1]

A number of M-55 Geophysica remain in service, performing in research roles; one M-55 took part in a study of the Arctic stratosphere in 1996–1997,[2] with Similar experiments performed in

Here's a great BR tribute to the MIG-25.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... oxbat.html

The MIGnificient Flying Machines
Shiv Aroor

then Air Chief Idris Latif — needed to gun up IAF’s virtually non-existent reconnaissance capability in the late 1970s to spy on Pakistan and China.

Latif, now leading a retired life in Hyderabad, pulled out his old albums three days ago to reminisce. Over the phone, he said, “I am saddened that our Foxbats will soon be gone, but they served an intensely useful purpose. When I was the IAF chief, I was shocked and delighted to learn that the Soviets were actually offering MiG-25 Foxbats to us in 1980. I phoned up Mrs (Indira) Gandhi and she told me to go ahead and make a decision. She was a brilliant leader to work with. The Foxbat was the best in the world and it was made available to us.”

Just look at the brilliance and leadership of Mrs.G.The air chief could just pick up the phone and speak to her.That's the way it should be and how a PM should keep the nation's security as the top priority.These days,a service chief will have to go through the desk clerk in the PMO and obtain his permission first!

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 18 Aug 2013 20:33

How relevant are these aircraft today? I'd suppose any BVR equipped fighters or decent SAM will be able to shoot them down.

kit · Post by **kit** » 18 Aug 2013 20:46

why not left the IAF have more say and action in the planning and functioning of the HAL .effectively putting them in the drivers seat ..let them be more involved ., let the air force envision their needs and try to fructify via HAL and a desi skunk works seriously required for pro typing out their babies

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 18 Aug 2013 21:19

Philip,

an RFP for New Aircraft for Sigint Plus Other Roles was to be issued by june 2013. not sure if it was issued.

btw RAW was also acquiring similar stuff.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 20 Aug 2013 16:28

New Record: IAF Puts Super Herc Down On Earth's Loftiest Airfield - Livefist

IAF Statement: In a significant capability demonstration move by the IAF, a C 130J-30 Super Hercules aircraft landed at Daulat Beg Oldie (DBO), the highest airstrip in the world at 0654 hrs today. The Commanding Officer Group Captain Tejbir Singh and the crew of the "Veiled Vipers" along with senior officer of Air Headquarters touched down on the DBO airstrip located at 16614 feet (5065 meters) in the Aksai Chin area after taking off from their home base at Hindon.

...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Aug 2013 22:34

Shouldn't the word be highest instead of Loftiest.

adj. loft·i·er, loft·i·est.
1. Of imposing height.
2. Elevated in character; exalted.
3. Affecting grandness; pompous.
4. Arrogant; haughty.

Wrong usage!!! The first meaning is archaic.

More like fist in the mouth!

gnair · Post by **gnair** » 20 Aug 2013 23:04

From the picture atleast, the airfield has no sign of navigation facilities on the ground. No VOR/DME, localiser, glide slope, PAPI/VASI. Unless the C-130 is self-sustainable to find its way here at night and/or on 8 octas cloud cover/over-cast days for a non-precision IFR (instrument) approach, while all the others in the fleet, will have to fly-in on VFR(visual/day) appraoch. Any which way, this is one deadly serious airfield to be dealing with for an airman.

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 21 Aug 2013 01:14

From the picture atleast, the airfield has no sign of navigation facilities on the ground. No VOR/DME, localiser, glide slope, PAPI/VASI. Unless the C-130 is self-sustainable to find its way here at night and/or on 8 octas cloud cover/over-cast days for a non-precision IFR (instrument) approach, while all the others in the fleet, will have to fly-in on VFR(visual/day) appraoch. Any which way, this is one deadly serious airfield to be dealing with for an airman.

If they have any radar/or anything, we don't have to show. I think we should deployed there LCA fighter right now.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2013 07:22

unless we can deploy a mech brigade with full logistical tail to the DBO, all these are just publicity without the teeth for a serious fight. a single MLRS barrage from well behind PLA lines will render the base inactive.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 21 Aug 2013 17:09

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 21 Aug 2013 17:22

^^^

excellent. 3 queries.

1. is that an UAV which chased and shot the footage??

2. dust totally engulfs the C-130J at landing. is there any mechanism which makes the engine 'doesn't' inhale the dust??

3. what load will it be able to carry at such heights?? although even if it carries 40%, that would be very good IMO.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 21 Aug 2013 18:36

awesome video... i wish the UAV or whatever it was also showed us something on the chinese side

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 21 Aug 2013 18:50

1. Yes, it's a UAV.
2. No clue
3. Given DBO's elevation only the IAF will know this but a 10 tonne payload vs 20 tonne normal capacity should be doable. Temperatures also matter.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 21 Aug 2013 19:16

2. There are water sources close by, a water bowser can help reduce the dust. C-130 itself can do the bowsing if it had fire fighting equipment onboard, takes away from the payload though

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Aug 2013 19:20

^^^^^

Chip Chap river runs south of OBD.

The UAV camera needs to have a tracking lock mechanism - where once the object to be focused on is determined a press of a button follows the object automatically.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 21 Aug 2013 19:38

so the plane did not stop / halt ..but just took off?? or did i miss something??

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 21 Aug 2013 20:06

Scene change between landing and takeoff at 1:27.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 21 Aug 2013 20:46

@pratikdad..right. Any reason why the surface is not cemented/ black topped? because they cant bring in soo much raw material?? i think going forward, they will land with incrementally increasing loads to see what kind of loads can be landed safely?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Aug 2013 20:50

The plane did not come to a total halt/stop.

The "scene" did nto change, the angle changed because the shot from one UAV (in the front) to another (at the rear).

Not black topped, etc because it is an ALG (Advanced Landing Ground) that was activated in the past year or two. It could see more activity IF things heat up I guess.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 21 Aug 2013 21:04

NRao wrote:The "scene" did nto change, the angle changed because the shot from one UAV (in the front) to another (at the rear).

Were you there? How can you say with certainty that the plume of dust on the 2nd scene was not on account of having started the engines for takeoff?

Did you see a time stamp in any of the video footage? You're just certain, somehow.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Aug 2013 21:09

I was never there.

You can fix a location on the ground in relation to any moving object and take it from there. There is a common "scene" between the two - if you look carefully.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 21 Aug 2013 21:27

If you have a problem with the word in quotes, feel free to get off the high horse and use the word you believe to be correct. At which point in the video do you see a common frame or object? Do feel free to share data instead of teasers.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 21 Aug 2013 23:03

That was a replay of an assault landing displayed at Iron Fist 2013, complete with UAV monitoring the proceedings. After touchdown the props go into reverse pitch to brake and that causes the dust to engulf the aircraft. Then unload troops and take off asap. Total time from touchdown to takeoff about 2 minutes. The video just did not show if anything was unloaded.

5 x C-130s could unload troops, guns, jeeps, ammo in 15 minutes. Bigger and more stuff could come in if C-17 is employed. IMO, this demo was as much for our own politicos as it was for the Chinese.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 22 Aug 2013 15:32

NRao wrote:The UAV camera needs to have a tracking lock mechanism - where once the object to be focused on is determined a press of a button follows the object automatically.

I think it did that in the video. Crosshairs changed to a rectangle and the EO sensor started tracking it automatically keeping the plane in the middle. For some reasons, the operator avoided locking onto the hercules, during approach and take off and deliberately kept the crosshair away from the plane.

Cheers....

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 22 Aug 2013 15:37

IMO would be very useful to have around 50 C-130Js and 50 C-17s. We should have an order of 100 MTA the kind of firepower that can be deployed with such numbers is extensive.

navneeet · Post by **navneeet** » 22 Aug 2013 16:53

NRao wrote:I was never there.

You can fix a location on the ground in relation to any moving object and take it from there. There is a common "scene" between the two - if you look carefully.

you are missing the shadows on the runway...